Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Date: 2012-03-15 01:21:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:26:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Does anyone know how bad the queries will be with only one target?
> Bad.  That cycle seems like largely a waste of time.  About the only
> thing it would do for you is ensure that relpages/reltuples are up to
> date, which seems like something we could possibly arrange for during
> the data import.

Well, it is also getting us the most common value, which seems useful.

> > I did see if vacuumdb --analyze-only was somehow being throttled by the
> > vacuum settings, but saw the drive at 100% utilization analying a 36GB
> > table on a 24GB RAM server, so it seems I/O bound.
> I think it'd be good to explicitly set vacuum_cost_delay to 0 in the
> first pass, in the same way as you are forcing
> default_statistics_target, just in case somebody has a nondefault
> setting for that.  The second pass could probably be allowed to use some
> higher delay setting.

OK, I have now set vacuum_cost_delay=0 for the first vacuumdb

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-03-15 01:24:26
Subject: Re: Faster compression, again
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-03-15 01:17:33
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group